DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-5, 18-19 and 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,036,295 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-4 and 16-18 of US Patent No. 12,036,295 B2 meet every element set forth in claims 2-5, 18-19 and 21-22 of the instant application.
Claims 7-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,036,295 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ranges claimed in claim 5 of US Patent No. 12,036,295 B2 overlap with those claimed in claim 7 of the instant application, so as to constitute anticipation of the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03. Alternatively, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Claims 6-11 of US Patent No. 12,036,295 B2 further meet the elements set forth in claims 8-13 of the instant application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 5, lines 3-4 of the specification discloses that FIG. 3 is a scanning electron micrograph of a fibrous component that is not homogenous, while page 9, lines 11-13 of the specification discloses that depictions of "homogenous fibrous material," "homogenous fibrous component," and "homogenous nonwoven material" are shown in FIGS. 1-3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The use of the terms Surfadone LP-100, Surfacone LP-300, Mackstat H 66, Glydant Plus, Kathon, Dissolvine GL 47S, Lamesoft PO65, Amisoft, Pluronic, Pluronic L-62, Poly-Tergent SLF, APG-300, APG-350, APG-500, and APG-500, Dow Coming 190 and 193, Bio-Soft, Bio-Soft D-40, Petro AA, Bio-Terge, Neodol, Diacid 1550 or H-240, Lambent wax WS-L, Lambent WD-F, Cetiol HE, Glucam P20, Polyox WSR N-10, Polyox WSR N-3000, Luviquat, Finsolv SLB 101, Estol 1517, Finsolv 18, SLB 201, Monomuls 90-0, Standamul HE, Lanexol AWS, Procetyl AWS, Ameroxol OE-2, Brij 78 and Brij 98, Arlasolve 200, Calfax 16L-35, Capmul POE-S and Finsolv SUBSTANTIAL, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 2 each recite the limitation “homogenous” instead of homogeneous. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “e.g.” This phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bessho (JP 2021070815 A, see attachment).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 19, Bessho teaches a wiping material that comprises a non-woven fabric and an aqueous composition supported on the non-woven fabric, wherein the aqueous composition comprises (a) a cationic surfactant, (b) an inorganic salt consisting of a cation and an anion, in which the cation is a cation of an element in Group 1 or 2 of the periodic table and at least one of the cation and anion is a divalent ion, and (c) a nonionic surfactant and water (Abstract).
Bessho teaches that specific examples of the component (b) include calcium chloride, magnesium chloride, calcium nitrate, magnesium nitrate, lithium sulfate, sodium sulfate, potassium sulfate, magnesium sulfate, sodium sulfite, magnesium sulfite, and the like ([0047]). The content of the component (b) in the aqueous composition is preferably not less than 0.1% by mass, more preferably not less than 0.2% by mass and even more preferably not less than 0.4% by mass, and is also preferably not more than 10% by mass, more preferably not more than 5% by mass and even more preferably not more than 2% by mass ([0049]).
Bessho teaches that the ingredient (d) is preferably one or more organic solvents having a hydroxyl group selected from the following ingredients (d1) to (d3) ([0067]). As the ingredient (d1), ethanol is preferable from the viewpoint of feeling in use, and as the ingredient (d2), one or more selected from ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, glycerin, diethylene glycol, and dipropylene glycol are preferable from the viewpoint of liquid safety ([0071]). The content of the component (d) in the aqueous composition is preferably not less than 0.1% by mass, more preferably not less than 0.5% by mass and even more preferably not less than 1% by mass, and is also preferably not more than 30% by mass, more preferably not more than 20% by mass and even more preferably not more than 10% by mass ([0073]).
Bessho teaches that the aqueous composition contains water in an amount of preferably 70% by mass or more, more preferably 75% by mass or more, and even more preferably 80% by mass or more, and preferably 99% by mass or less, more preferably 98% by mass or less, and even more preferably 97% by mass or less ([0077]).
Bessho teaches that examples of the nonwoven fabric include nonwoven fabrics in which the proportion of hydrophilic fibers in the constituent fibers is 50% by mass or more ([0084]). In this case, the remainder of the constituent fibers are hydrophobic fibers ([0084]). When the nonwoven fabric is a blended nonwoven fabric containing a hydrophilic fiber such as rayon or cotton and a hydrophobic fiber such as polyester, polypropylene, or polyethylene, the bending rigidity value (B value) of the nonwoven fabric can be increased, and the wiping easiness of the wiping material is improved ([0085]). The examiner notes that a blended nonwoven fabric would be homogeneous as claimed, and that hydrophobic fibers such as polyester, polypropylene, or polyethylene would meet the claimed water soluble binder limitation.
In the alternative, Bessho teaches that examples of the hydrophobic fiber include a polyvinyl alcohol-based fiber (vinylon or the like), which the examiner notes meets the claimed water soluble binder limitation ([0083]). Bessho also teaches that by using the predetermined inorganic salt of the component (b) in combination, even in a blended nonwoven fabric containing hydrophilic fibers and hydrophobic fibers, adsorption of the cationic surfactant of the component (a) and the nonionic surfactant of the component (c) can be suppressed, and the cationic surfactant and the nonionic surfactant blended in the aqueous composition are released as set, so that the expected effects can be obtained ([0085])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a blended nonwoven fabric structure when polyvinyl alcohol-based fiber is used as the hydrophobic fiber in order to suppress adsorption of the components (a) and (c) and to the thereby obtain the expected effects of these components ([0085]). It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that a blended nonwoven fabric containing hydrophilic fibers and hydrophobic fibers would be homogeneous, as blending of the fibers would be expected to provide a homogeneous structure, and as Bessho does not teach providing a gradient structure.
Regarding claims 3-5, Bessho teaches that the aqueous composition can contain the components (e1) to (e3) as further optional components ([0074]). The examiner notes that these components include an (e2) component: silicon-containing compound, and (e3) components: perfume compounds, antioxidants, preservatives, pigments, or pH adjusters (excluding the components (a), (b), (c), and (d)) ([0074]). Specific examples of the (e2) ingredient include one or more compounds selected from silicon dioxide and silicone compounds ([0076]).
Regarding claim 18, Bessho teaches that nonwoven fabrics generally comprise hydrophilic fibers and/or hydrophobic fibers ([0080]). The hydrophilic fiber is preferably one or more selected from the group consisting of a seed hair fiber, a cellulosic fiber, and a hydrophilized polyethylene terephthalate fiber, and more preferably one or more fibers selected from the group consisting of cotton and rayon, from the viewpoint of ease of wiping, liquid absorbency, and liquid releasability ([0082]). The examiner notes that when the nonwoven fabrics comprise only hydrophilic fibers and two kinds of the hydrophilic fiber are used (e.g., cotton and rayon), the claimed limitations would be met, including the claim 2 limitation “a homogenous fibrous material comprising one or more cellulosic fibers at about 50 to about 99% w/w of the homogenous fibrous material and one or more water soluble binders.”
Regarding claim 20, Bessho teaches that examples of the cationic surfactants (a) include N-alkyl pyridinium salt surfactants and quaternary ammonium salt-type surfactants ([0016]).
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hurley (WO 2020/056146 A1, see attachment).
Regarding claims 2 and 24, Hurley teaches a moist wipe that includes: a) a homogenous fibrous material comprising one or more water soluble binders; and b) a liquid component comprising
i. about 58 to about 79 % w/w of water,
ii. about 0 to about 10 % w/w of dipropylene glycol,
iii. about 0 to about 10 % w/w of glycereth 26,
iv. about 0 to about 4 % w/w of calcium chloride, and
vi. about 5 to about 20 % w/w of ethanol (see the lower half of page 9).
Hurley teaches that a homogenous fibrous material includes one or more cellulosic fibers at about 50 to about 99% w/w and one or more water soluble binders (2nd par. on page 12).
It is the position of the Office that the prior art discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity so as to constitute anticipation of the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03. Alternatively, it is the position of the Office that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claims 3-4, Hurley teaches that the liquid component may further comprise a chelating agent, an emulsifier, an emollient, a humectant, a pH adjusting agent, an odor neutralizing agent, and a fragrance (see the top of page 9). Also see the paragraph that spans pages 15 and 16.
Regarding claim 5, Hurley teaches that, in additional embodiments, any of the liquid components may further comprise magnesium aluminum silicate, xanthan gum, cornstarch, silica, and any combination thereof (see the lower half of page 5).
Regarding claims 7-9, Hurley teaches that, in one embodiment, any of the wipes exhibit a machine direction wet tensile strength greater or equal to about 150 g/inch and a cross direction wet tensile strength of greater than about 75 g/inch (see characteristic (i) on page 6). In one embodiment, the machine cross direction wet tensile strength is reduced to less than or equal to about 50 g/in and the cross direction wet tensile strength is reduced to less than or equal to about 25 g/in, after being soaked in water for any duration of time (see characteristic (i) on page 6). In one embodiment, the machine direction wet tensile strength and the cross direction wet tensile strength is reduced such that it is no long measurable after being soaked in water for any duration of time (see characteristic (ii) on pages 6-7).
Regarding claims 10-13, Hurley teaches the claimed dispersion rates (see characteristic (iii) on pages 7-8).
Regarding claims 14-16, Hurley teaches the claimed strength limitations (see characteristics iv, v and vi on page 8).
Regarding claim 17, Hurley teaches that the moist wipes are packaged (see bottom of page 8, or bottom of page 11).
Regarding claim 18, Hurley teaches that, in an aspect, the homogeneous fibrous material is comprised of 100% plant-based materials (last two lines on page 11).
Regarding claim 19, Hurley teaches that illustrations of “homogenous fibrous material,” “homogenous fibrous component,” and “homogenous nonwoven material” are shown in Figures 1-3 (last par. on page 13). The examiner notes that FIGS. 1 and 2 are scanning electron micrographs of cross sections of a homogenous fibrous component (see bottom of page 12).
Regarding claim 20, Hurley teaches that, in a further aspect, the liquid further comprises a quaternary ammonium compound (first line on page 12).
Regarding claims 21-22, Hurley teaches that, in aspects of the invention, the one or more cellulosic fibers comprises a pulp fiber or a regenerated cellulose fiber and the one or more water soluble binders comprises carboxymethyl cellulose (3rd par. on page 12). According to aspects of the invention, the one or more cellulose fibers are present at about 75 to 99 % w/w of the total weight of the wipe and the carboxymethyl cellulose is present at about 1 to about 25 % w/w of the total weight of the wipe (4th par. on page 12).
Regarding claim 23, Hurley teaches, in other embodiments as shown in Tables 4 and 5, two wipes each labeled “1.” Hurley teaches that the homogenous fibrous material used in wipes 1 and A-E contains cellulosic fibers and a carboxymethyl cellulose binder (see page 28 above Table 4). Hurley also teaches that a homogenous fibrous material “according to the present invention” includes one or more cellulosic fibers at about 50 to about 99% w/w and one or more water soluble binders (2nd par. on page 12). The examiner notes that these wipes therefore meet the limitations of independent claim 2 and are also free or substantially free of ethanol and isopropyl alcohol as claimed in claim 23.
In the event that Hurley does not explicitly disclose in these examples that the homogeneous fibrous material comprises the cellulosic fibers at about 50 to about 99% w/w of the homogenous fibrous material, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that about 50 to about 99% w/w of the cellulosic fibers would be present in the homogeneous fibrous materials of the wipes of the examples because Hurley teaches that a homogenous fibrous material “according to the present invention” includes one or more cellulosic fibers at about 50 to about 99% w/w and one or more water soluble binders (2nd par. on page 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 6-7, 17 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessho (JP 2021070815 A, see attachment), as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, in view of Parsons et al. (US 2020/0255992 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7, Bessho remains as applied above
Bessho does not explicitly disclose wherein the wipe exhibits a machine direction wet tensile strength of approximately 260 g/inch and a cross direction wet tensile strength in a range of approximately 233 g/inch, or wherein the wipe exhibits a machine direction wet tensile strength in a range of approximately 185-360 g/inch and a cross direction wet tensile strength in a range of approximately 195-282 g/inch.
However, Parsons teaches nonwoven materials that can be used either alone or as a component in a variety of absorbent articles, including cleaning articles, personal care wipes, baby diapers, adult incontinence products, sanitary napkins and the like ([0107]). Absorbent cleaning products include wipes, sheets, towels, and the like ([0107]). The nonwoven materials can have a machine-direction wet tensile strength of greater than about 100 gli, or greater than about 200 gli, or greater than about 240 gli, or greater than about 300 gli, or greater than about 350 gli, or from about 100 gli to about 1500 gli, or from about 100 gli to about 1000 gli, or from about 200 gli to about 500 gli, or from about 240 gli to about 450 gli ([0113]). The nonwoven materials can have a cross-direction wet tensile strength of greater than about 100 gli, or greater than about 250 gli, or greater than about 300 gli, or greater than about 400 gli, or greater than about 430 gli, or greater than about 500 gli, or from about 100 gli to about 1500 gli, or from about 200 gli to about 1000 gli, or from about 300 gli to about 800 gli, or from about 400 gli to about 600 gli, or from about 430 gli to about 550 gli ([0113]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the wipes with a machine-direction wet tensile strength of greater than about 100 gli, or from about 100 gli to about 1000 gli, or from about 200 gli to about 500 gli, or from about 240 gli to about 450 gli, and a cross-direction wet tensile strength of greater than about 100 gli, or from about 200 gli to about 1000 gli, in order to obtain personal wipes or absorbent cleaning wipes that have improved mechanical properties, as suggested by Parsons ([0113] and [0107]).
Regarding claim 17, Parson teaches packaging ([0129]). It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have packaged the wipes in order to prevent the water in the aqueous composition from evaporating before the wiping material is used.
Regarding claims 21-22, Parson teaches that the first layer of the nonwoven can include a blend of bicomponent fibers and cellulose fibers, the bicomponent fibers can be present in an amount of from about 5 wt-% to about 100 wt-%, or from about 5 wt-% to about 75 wt-%, or from about 5 wt-% to about 50 wt-%, or from about 5 wt-% to about 25 wt-%, or from about 10 wt-% to about 15 wt-% and the cellulose fibers can be present in an amount of from about 0 wt-% to about 95 wt-%, or from about 25 wt-% to about 95 wt-%, or from about 50 wt-% to about 95 wt-%, or from about 75 wt-% to about 95 wt-%, or of from about 85 wt-% to about 90 wt-% ([0099]). In certain embodiments, at least one of the first layer and the second layer can be coated on at least of a portion of its outer surface with a binder ([0100]). If present, the binder can be applied in amounts ranging from about 1 gsm to about 30 gsm, or from about 1 gsm to about 20 gsm, or from about 1 gsm to about 15 gsm, or from about 2 gsm to about 10 gsm, or from about 2 gsm to about 8 gsm, or from about 3 gsm to about 5 gsm ([0100]). Overall, the first layer can have a basis weight of from about 5 gsm to about 100 gsm (among other ranges) ([0091]). The examiner notes that examples of suitable binders include carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) ([0074]). (Also see [0080] and [0102]-[0103]).
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessho (JP 2021070815 A, see attachment), as applied to claim 2 above, and as further applied below.
Regarding claim 23, Bessho does not explicitly disclose wherein the wipe is free or substantially free of ethanol and isopropyl alcohol. However, Bessho teaches that the ingredient (d) is preferably one or more organic solvents having a hydroxyl group selected from the following ingredients (d1) to (d3) ([0067]). Examples of (d1) components include ethanol (- 0.24), 1-propanol (0.29), and 2-propanol (0.07) ([0068]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have made the wipes free of ethanol and isopropyl alcohol when component (d3) is included as an alternative to component (d1).
Regarding claim 24, Bessho does not explicitly disclose wherein the wipe is free or substantially free of glycereth-26.
However, the examiner notes that Bessho teaches, in an embodiment, an Example 4-5 in which a disclosed aqueous composition is free of glycereth-26 (see Table 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided wipes that are free of glycereth-26 because Bessho teaches an example of an aqueous composition that provides the benefits of Bessho’s invention without the incorporation of glycereth-26.
Claim(s) 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley (WO 2020/056146 A1, see attachment), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Parsons et al. (US 2020/0255992 A1).
Regarding claims 7-17, Hurley remains as applied above, teaching the claimed limitations of claim 7.
In addition, with respect to the limitations of claim 7, Parsons teaches nonwoven materials that can be used either alone or as a component in a variety of absorbent articles, including cleaning articles, personal care wipes, baby diapers, adult incontinence products, sanitary napkins and the like ([0107]). Absorbent cleaning products include wipes, sheets, towels, and the like ([0107]). The nonwoven materials can have a machine-direction wet tensile strength of greater than about 100 gli, or greater than about 200 gli, or greater than about 240 gli, or greater than about 300 gli, or greater than about 350 gli, or from about 100 gli to about 1500 gli, or from about 100 gli to about 1000 gli, or from about 200 gli to about 500 gli, or from about 240 gli to about 450 gli ([0113]). The nonwoven materials can have a cross-direction wet tensile strength of greater than about 100 gli, or greater than about 250 gli, or greater than about 300 gli, or greater than about 400 gli, or greater than about 430 gli, or greater than about 500 gli, or from about 100 gli to about 1500 gli, or from about 200 gli to about 1000 gli, or from about 300 gli to about 800 gli, or from about 400 gli to about 600 gli, or from about 430 gli to about 550 gli ([0113]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the wipes with a machine-direction wet tensile strength of greater than about 100 gli, or from about 100 gli to about 1000 gli, or from about 200 gli to about 500 gli, or from about 240 gli to about 450 gli, and a cross-direction wet tensile strength of greater than about 100 gli, or from about 200 gli to about 1000 gli, in order to obtain personal wipes or absorbent cleaning wipes that have improved mechanical properties, as suggested by Parsons ([0113] and [0107]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Salam (WO 2020/068151 A1, attached) teaches a single-layer nonwoven fabric characterized by a dispersion time in water of less than about 10 seconds, alternatively less than about 5 seconds, or alternatively less than about 1 second, wherein the dispersion time is determined via a slosh box tester in accordance with GD3 INDA/EDANA ([00187]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights